[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: tiny-armed theropods
Matthew Martyniuk <email@example.com> wrote:
> How is abandoning Troodontidae, which is currently used universally in
> the literature, better for stability than re-instating Deinodontidae?
> Some people seem to be arguing that it's better to conserve whatever
> names are currently in vogue in the name of stability. Others seem to
> be saying we should chuck widely-used names if their types are
> dubious, lost, etc. AFAIK nobody is arguing that the phylogenetic
> position of _T. formosus_ is so unstable that (Troodon > Passer) and
> (Saurornithoides > Passer) are potentially different clades.
Briefly.... if _Troodon formosus_ becomes a nomen dubium, the name
will be limited to the holotype: a single tooth. So what's the big
deal? I'm glad you asked. If you carry out a phylogenetic analysis
to determine the affinities of Troodontidae, you'll need to put
_Troodon_ (= a single tooth) into the analysis. But if _Troodon_ is
an invalid genus (i.e., not a valid operational taxonomic unit, or
OTU) this would be pointless. Nevertheless, you'd have to stick
_Troodon_ in the analysis just for bookkeeping reasons, to determine
what is captured by _Troodon > Passer_.
All this could actually lead to instability - owing to inadequacy of
the _Troodon_ type, which could mean it may not have a stable position
in the tree. This problem would not arise with _Saurornithoides_ - or
at least, not nearly to the same degree.
Of course, all this could be alleviated by establishing a neotype for